I didn't say they were bad cameras, just that they never caught. If they had, Canon and Nikon would have made then too.
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/17/2004 11:16:17 AM >>> Steve Desjardins wrote: > There are many folks that have enough money to buy a DSLR but really > don't want or need the advantages. For those folks the prosumer cams > are a better choice. These cameras existed for film (remember those > Olympus cameras?) but never really caught on. As a one time OM-1 and OM-2 owner, I take exception to the "...never really caught on" comment. That series of small Olympus SLRs were exceptionally well engineered, well thought out and heavily accessorized. They had lenses that were top of the line performers by anyone's criteria. Their OTF metering was just one small stroke of genius. What made me finally give up my Oly platform for Pentax? Batteries, for one thing! And higher and higher prices for their increasingly more sophisicated models. Then I happened to find a 99.5% condition Pentax MG at a show, with a Pentax-M 50mm f/2.0, that felt so like the little OM's, that used "common," readily available batteries, and the price was right. I took it home with me, and within a month I was selling all of my Olympus gear and replacing it with even more Pentax gear! However, I still have a soft spot in my heart for those little Oly jewels... > But with a big enough > zoom, they are fine for digital work./ My friends that own things like > the Nikon 5700 love them and would never go to an interchangeable lens > model. They just want to take good quality images and not invest in a > bunch of lenses. These cameras do exactly that. The big changes will > be the improvements of the electronic viewfinders. Once they improve > the reaction speed of the display and the color rendition, the SLR-style > optical viewfinder will be a thing for enthusiasts and pros. IMHO, of > course ;-) > > > Steven Desjardins keith whaley
